Apple Under Investigation for Antitrust Violation
- Thread starter Austin MacKenzie
- Start date
Liberal Elite Smackdown
VS
FIGHT!
But ideally the developers will simply leave Apple in droves and they will be forced to be more open. Seriously, Apple is standing in the way of all the things that distinguish the internet... made it great for the USERS!
Sheesh, when did apple turn into the new AOL (oh yeah, when they rehired Steve Jobs after firing him for being too tyrannical).
FIGHT!
But ideally the developers will simply leave Apple in droves and they will be forced to be more open. Seriously, Apple is standing in the way of all the things that distinguish the internet... made it great for the USERS!
Sheesh, when did apple turn into the new AOL (oh yeah, when they rehired Steve Jobs after firing him for being too tyrannical).
Hey, Apple doesn't even WANT you going on sites like this.LANCE420 said:
They'd come up with some bullshit like "oh you want escapist magazine? well how about you pay for an APP to get it!"
I mean WHY is there a New York Times app? That would be cheaper, easier and BETTER to just make it browser based.
Remember this:
In the same week Bill Gates said his little foundation was going to save hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions, i forget the number) of african kids over the next decade...the iphone XL - phone was announced.
and people (fools) still think MS is the worse company.
In the same week Bill Gates said his little foundation was going to save hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions, i forget the number) of african kids over the next decade...the iphone XL - phone was announced.
and people (fools) still think MS is the worse company.
At risk of being flamed by all the anti-Apple zealots here I don't blame them for not wanting Flash on the iPod/Phone/Pad.Any version of Flash for them would most likely be based off the computer variant,meaning all it takes is one more buggy Flash release and BAM no more iPod/Phone/Pad!
b) This assumes you care about the people he's donating it to.Africa dug its own grave,let it rot.
a) Odds are he was only doing it to milk the publicityMR T3D said:
b) This assumes you care about the people he's donating it to.Africa dug its own grave,let it rot.
Its not just about the Flash thing, its also about the way Apple treats the people who create apps.zelda2fanboy said:
(Sorry in advance for all the tech lingo, but this sort of shit pisses me off)
According to Apple, if you are making an app for the iWhogivesashit, you have to make it with their SDK. You can't use a third-party IDE because that IDE wont have access to the API, which means if a dev wants to make their app cross-platform they have to write the app multiple times. Since recoding a program in another language is a pain in the ass, time consuming, and potentially costly, a lot of devs wont bother with it. This effectively creates a monopoly for that app in the iStore.
Basically, that policy is an underhanded way of diminishing the competition in the app market.
...Because everything Apple makes is so stable and secure, right?Aeshi said:
Oof.OmegaXzors said:
Alright, I'm going to ignore Flash, because this change actually covers a lot of development platforms and APIs which have histories I can reference.
1)
First, are you a programmer? Somehow, I severely doubt it.
Second: Why should we, when there's no reason to? Before this idiocy, you could program for all touch-capable smartphones at the same time, and do a good job of it. Some of the best iPod apps (apps that Jobbyboy has specifically highlighted in his presentations) have been programmed and produced using third-party interfaces.
Further, there's a such thing as a "budget". Developing for multiple platforms independently is expensive, time-consuming and pointless. I'd be willing to wager this could end up driving some developers out of business, due to the extra costs and time involved. Especially considering the supported languages are major pains to deal with.
2)
Are you really so naive as to think that just because an app is "specialized" it will be "awesome"? Or even that it will run well?
There are a lot of apps that work well because the programmers have had the opportunity to use someone else's work for the 3D engines, UI's, etc. Because the programmers have had access to a 3rd party API that handles most of the grunt work so they can concentrate on important things like, say... Gameplay?
3)
Considering you don't seem to even know which programming languages Apple has "endorsed" (hint: C# isn't one of them) I find this a doubtful proposition.
Assuming you didn't pull that example out of your ass: I'm sure there are specific cases that could be cited the other way... all programming languages have specific strengths and weaknesses so citing a single example designed to favor Apple is disingenuous.
4)
This is... kinda the point we're all trying to make, actually. Apple wants some indistinct "benefit" (because, y'know, forcing people to use a specific language will decrease the number of fart apps on the marketplace) and is trying to strong-arm their developers into playing along.
The fact that Apple did this actually directly betrays the fact that they believe they have a monopoly, or at least enough weight to force a majority of their developers to do what they want. In other words, Apple is behaving exactly as though they already are the biggest kid on the block, and you wonder why people are accusing them of anti-competitive practices?
There's no benefit in this move to Consumers, Programmers or Competition. Seems a pretty cut-and-dry case of what anti-trust legislation is intended to prevent.
How is that any different than what video game hardware manufacturers do with their systems? You have to pay to get a license to develop for the PS3, you have to use Sony's kit, you have to meet their standards, you have to give them a cut for every copy you sell, and you have to code it all over again if you want to release it on another system. I'm not some Apple fanboy here and I don't use iphones or ipods or ipads, I just think people are overreacting. The fact of the matter is that Apple stumbled upon this particular business model first and came up with a hot item to use it on. If they did that with their desktop OS, they wouldn't make a dime, but this isn't a desktop we're talking about.7ru7h said:
You can't win an anti trust case just because a company isn't being developer friendly. They can go develop for something else, if they really want to. And when competitors pose a significant challenge to Apple (which they most certainly will), the company will be forced into adapting and changing. This lawsuit is a waste of everyone's time.
Of course then the Escapist has to spend more money to Apple for royalties,and also to create and maintain the app! talk about a Win-Lose, non-synergistic proposition for Apple and the Escapist!Treblaine said:
I have very few apps anyway on my phone since 90% are largely useless.
I was joking (badly it seems) :Smogamer said:Who would be doing that? Without Flash, this site would be tough to go through.Leroy Frederick said:Bet you guys are sending all of these via your iPads just for good measure
Your right. Its just like the consoles. But, before I go on agreeing with you, remind me, which console manufacturer is it that will allow you to freely develop for their platform but shackles you with arbitrary rules about what kind of game you can make, who can randomly say your game cannot come out for their system even though you its already coded or pull the game from the shelves because they've decided they don't like it anymore, who will make modifications to the system to brick the console if it isn't being used they way they want, and who will actively sabotage your game if it competes with one of the manufacturer's games? Because I can't think of a single console manufacturer that does that.zelda2fanboy said:
I did take your statement as sarcasim. But I took it the other way! LOLLeroy Frederick said:I was joking (badly it seems) :Smogamer said:Who would be doing that? Without Flash, this site would be tough to go through.Leroy Frederick said:Bet you guys are sending all of these via your iPads just for good measure
All of them do that. You have to get a software license from whoever you're developing for and they have full say in what type of game you can make. You can't make Mr. Dildo 3000 for the Wii, nor can Konami port Metal Gear Solid 4 to another console. Cave Story didn't come out on Nintendo's WiiWare service for months due to Nintendo's ambiguous standards. When the Hot Coffee deal went down, the ESRB rerated the game and GTA got "pulled from the shelves" in part due to the fact that MS and Sony won't allow adult rated games on their consoles. All three of the console companies can brick your system via updates if you put hacking software on it. Just ask some permanently banned xbox live members. The Wii deletes unauthorized saves and the Homebrew Channel all the time. Sometimes, new games require system updates to run that do exactly this. As far as sabotage goes, hardware manufacturers can control the level of exposure and distribution a game can get (because you have to buy their cases and their proprietary media), and they wouldn't help sell a game that would undercut their business.7ru7h said:
When Nintendo first introduced the idea of software licensing, they had to prove in court that what they were doing was legal. A hardware company has every right to control what software can and cannot run on their system. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's lawyers look to Nintendo for a legal precedent.
To start off, I am not a fanboy of Apple. I don't own a single Apple product. No iPhones, iPads, Macs, or even an iPod exists in my house. I'm friends with close friends with two individuals programming for the iPhone and iPad. One of them works on the game engine for the upcoming Transformers: War for Cybertron video game. Most of my information provided was quoted from the mouths of those two, the only reason why I posted this. You should understand that seeing posts that just say "Apple getting what they deserve!" when all they read is the title and nothing else.saregos said:
Also, the reason why Apple is doing this in the first place (seeming as you're one of the only intelligent people to have posted in this thread because you recognized this factor) because Adobe made a POS Flash compiler. Their history with Adobe speaks for itself. Flash just doesn't seem to have it's way with Apple and Apple doesn't want to give any sort of control over anything to anyone else. They'd rather limit their developers than give them options.
I worded it so poorly basically for the main point instilled into the whole sloppy mess so anyone could understand. Apple wants Apps to made for each of their devices specifically.saregos said:
"Budget" isn't a word that exists in the Apple vocabulary. They want it done right the first time, no exceptions. You and I can have opinions but they simply don't care. Do you think they think it's "clever" to simply port your iPhone version of some video game to the iPad? No. They think it's sloppy and lazy. Again, referring to the open letter to Adobe.saregos said:
Apple does have it's greed run dry. I believe they take about 30% of every profit you make off an Application. I believe it costs about $120 for the developing license a month. Though, the program itself is I guess "Retard-Safe" because just about anyone can pick it up and start developing. It's plain and simple which is how they want all their Applications. They want a unique and perfect world and the only way to do that is through the redundant and asinine maneuvers they're trying to pull. Personally, I don't care. I only posted what I said because I wanted opinions from the said friends. Then when I read what I read on here, I decided to post feed back. I appreciate your words. Honestly, I do.saregos said:
A lot of your points are moot. Apple doesn't behave like a console manufacturer, because even if you do something Microsoft doesn't like, you can still use the hardware (if you don't have a RROD, but that is something totally different), the just remove the ability to go online with it, whereas if you try to use the iPhone on a non-AT&T network, they will try to turn your iphone into a paper wieght.zelda2fanboy said:
As for your section on sabatoging, you'll have to elaborate, since I didn't really catch what you were trying to say. If you can show me something along the lines of Microsoft trying to kill off any Non-Halo FPS, you would have a point.
Now we're just fighting over semantics. Using unauthorized content on a console results in the warranty being null and void. If your system does break on its own, Nintendo won't fix it for free (in essence, bricking the system). I don't have any evidence of MS blocking Halo knockoffs, but Nintendo ruled the NES library with an iron fist and I am sure there are instances in which that occurred. Of course, third parties wouldn't really know for sure, since Nintendo held no obligation to tell them this. This doesn't happen anymore thanks to the number of hardware competitors on the market. Metal Gear is on PS3 due to a contract with Konami. MS got a contract written up that GTA 4 had to launch on xbox at the same time as the PS3. A licensing agreement is also a contract. Any software manufacturer can put almost whatever they want into their licensing agreement. However, they limit it so as to be competitive with other console makers.7ru7h said:
Controlling AO titles is essentially the same as controlling content. What if RPGs were deemed a revolting and disgusting practice that no manufacturer wanted anything to do with? They'd have every right to ban those titles from their systems.
Listen, I'm not saying what Apple is doing is ethical. I don't buy their gimmicky crap anyways. I'm just saying it's legal. You're right when you say "the more controls you have on hardware, the less valuable your hardware is." Apple's computer line suffered on the market for more than a decade because they wouldn't allow third parties to manufacture their hardware, nor would they allow third party operating systems. It was dumb, but it was perfectly legal. By your logic, Toyota would be fined by the government for not selling blue cars. Or cars without radios.
Don't worry. Apple will be ***** slapped by the market soon enough when competitors catch up. It's not nearly as bad as the pharmaceutical industry. The US government allows for limited monopoly all the time. If a drug company comes up with something first, they get a limited window (I think five years) to dominate the market before generics are even allowed to be manufactured. The same thing happens when the drugs go over the counter.